Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51589/2016rejected

Md. Reyazuddin Ansari v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-04-04Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51589 of 2016 (6) dt.04-04-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51589 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -14 Year- 2016 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Md. Reyazuddin Ansari Son of Md. Maneer Ansari resident of VillageBanke Bahuara, P.S.- Kuchhila, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Shabiran Khatun, Daughter of Subhan Ansari, Resident of VillageKoribalia, P.S.- Natwar, District- Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nirmal Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-04-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Complaint Police Station Case No. 14 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 498(A), 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the D.P.Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the matter was referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre for settlement of dispute between the parties and the parties have settled their dispute also, which is evident from the Mediator's report. Now the complaint does not want to reside with her husband. The petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51589 of 2016 (6) dt.04-04-2017 innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the allegation leveled against the petitioner is totally false, fabricated and only to harass the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T